"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God?" 1 Cor. 14: 2. May we not, must we not, insist with him, that "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, no one can prepare himself for the battle?" Is it not lawful to argue as he does, and say: “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye will speak into the air." 1 Cor. 14: 7-9. Nay more: "If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me." 1 Cor. 14:11. And what follows from all this, according to the judgment of Paul himself? The deduction is plain, simple, rational; it is this, that “if there be no interpreter," the prophet who was about to speak an unknown language in the church, "must keep silence." 1 Cor. 14: 28. And y -yet after all this, which stands out in the full blaze of heaven's light, we are every day told by one class of interpreters, that the ancient prophets habitually practised the very things, which Paul first argues down and (I might say) satirizes, and then forbids.

For myself, I hope to be forgiven, if I am slow to believe in such a case. Why should we convert the ancient prophets into "barbarians,” and make them "speak into the air?" Why should we strive to show, that they bear a character like that of the heathen prognosticators, the μύσται and μάντεις? Can we suppose an omniscient God to resort to such expedients as these, merely in order to impress upon men the idea of his foreknowledge and of his unsearchableness? Nothing but conscious short-sightedness, and a feeling of inability to explain difficult passages of Scripture, would naturally conceal itself in this way. The thought of such mysterious and occult dealing is, at least in my view, incompatible with the character of him. whose name is Light and Love. Yes; God is Light, and in

him is no darkness at all. Nor can I believe, that there is a prophet or an apostle, from Enoch down to the evangelist John, who would not each instantly say, could they be summoned as witnesses in the present case: "I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." 1 Cor. 14: 19.

I will only add, that if any one will carefully peruse the books of Commentary on the Scriptures, and the Essays on the prophecies which are extant in our mother tongue, he will soon find, that the-double sense of Scripture, and particularly of Old Testament Scriptures which are supposed to contain predictions respecting Christ and the church, and the unintelligible nature of prophecies both in the Old Testament and the New respecting distant and future events, are made grounds of interpretation in cases almost without number and beyond credibility. It is time that this region of mysticism and imagination and fancy should be traversed. Let us not be overawed, like Homer's Ulysses and Virgil's Eneas, when we get into the region of Umbrae. No; rather let us take in one hand the torch of revelation, in the other that of reason, and advance boldly into the darkest recesses of this nether world. We shall find, after all, that there is nothing there but Umbrae, with which we shall be obliged to contend. And with all the show that may be made of discontent at our coming, and of oppugnation to our advancement, by the dwellers in that region, the light of reason and revelation will make them flee away, like the shadows of the night before the morning sun.

4. DESIGNATIONS OF TIME IN the prophecies, The endless discussions and difficulties that have arisen, in respect to these, must be familiarly known to every one who is acquainted with the interpretation of prophecy. Merely to recount the various methods of interpreting the designations of time, connected with the various modes of applying the prophecies which are consequent upon these interpretations, would occupy no inconsiderable volume. As it is no part of my design to exhaust the subject, I shall forbear in this case, as I have in the cases above, to bring before the reader any thing more of the views of others, than what may serve as a kind of basis for the question I intend to discuss. A polemic discussion which would have a mere private and individual bearing, is altogether remote from my design.

ap

In entering upon the consideration of the great and difficult subject now proposed, I must beg leave to bring before the reader's mind some of the plain and obvious principles of interpretation, which ought to be observed in the pursuit of such inquiries as the present. I speak of the subject as being a difficult one, rather because of the division of opinion among critics respecting it, and because of the difficulty of ascertaining historical facts in some cases that are related to the prophecies, than because I prehend the subject to be in itself very difficult, when simply considered without reference to any particular theory of interpretation. Once fully persuaded that the usual laws of language are to be applied to the designations of time in the prophetical books, our course is quite plain. If the periods designated are to be understood like other limitations of time in the Scriptures and in all other books, then we have merely to search for events which took place

at the respective periods named, and see whether they accord with the spirit, tenor, and design of the prophecy. When these events are disclosed, and their appropriateness exhibited, our work as interpreters is done.

First of all, then, I would remind the reader of one of the plainest and most cogent of all the rules of Hermeneutics. This is, that every passage of Scripture, or of any other book, is to be interpreted as bearing its plain and primary and literal sense, unless good reason can be given why it should be tropically understood.

A principle so plain and reasonable as this, scarcely needs any defence. The natural sense of all words is the original and literal one. The very phrase, tropical sense, or figurative sense, shows that the natural meaning of words is to be laid aside. But to lay this aside, there must be good and substantial reasons.

I have spoken of the original and literal sense of words as being the natural one. The original sense is that which the word was coined to convey; and of course this is the natural sense. But many words often deflect from this, in a considerable measure, without bearing what is usually called a tropical sense; e. g. xoivo to judge, but also to condemn and to vindicate; 2 to perish, but also to wander, etc. It is thus that branches and limbs, as it were, spring out from the main trunk, which is the original meaning of the word; yet these, however numerous, while they preserve merely the character of branches and limbs, are not employed in a way simply tropical.

When we admit the tropical sense of a passage, it must be because, if literally understood, the subject and predicate would not harmonize, or because a literal sense would be frigid, unmeaning, or inappropriate. In such cases we assume the position, that the writer was guided by common sense, and did not mean to say what would involve a con

tradiction or an absurdity, or what is frigid and inept. For example; believing most fully that God is a spirit, and that he was regarded by the sacred writers as such, when we find such a sentence as the following, "God is our sun," we say the word sun must not be understood in its usual acceptation, but in a tropical sense. And why? Because a spirit is not, and cannot be, a sensible, material, ever-varying, perishable object. We suppose the writer to mean, in such a case, that God is to us what the sun is to the natural world. He imparts life and light, and diffuses his blessings every where and without cessation.

In all cases where tropical language is employed by the sacred writers, it can be known by the application of some one of the principles which I have already mentioned. The judicious application of these, is what preeminently distinguishes one critic from another. Enthusiasts make shipwreck, when they launch upon the somewhat perilous ocean of figure and metaphor and allegory; and it needs a cool head, and some dexterity in practice, to guide the ship on her right course and always keep her safe and in perfect trim.

Without saying a word more upon this general subject, or upon the frequency of tropical language in the Scriptures, I would suggest, with special reference to the subject before us, that of all the various ingredients of which language is composed, and which render it capable of a tropical use, the designations of time, space, and numbers, appear to be the least susceptible of being so employed. The rareness of such a usage in regard to time, all must admit, even those who give such a meaning to designations of time in the books of Daniel and of the Revelation. Compared with the number of instances in the whole Bible, in which periods of time are named, and which (as all agree) must be literally interpreted, designations of this